Domestic implementation, of international criminal justice : Function of implementing legislation

在今年的研究项目中，从比较的角度考察了国际刑事法院（ICC）的立法实施情况。特别着重于以下几点：(1)国内程序和机关在执行国际刑事法院发出的逮捕令方面的作用；(2)国内法院在将被告移交国际刑事法院方面的作用；(3)扣押被国际刑事法院定罪的人的财产的国内措施；(4)国内刑法规则对执行国际刑事法院宣布的判决的适用性。通过这一考察，笔者得出了以下结论：在有国际刑事法院实施现有刑法之外的立法的国家，该立法的实施功能通常非常有效，以至于能够成功地将国际刑事法院规约与国内法律制度联系起来。相反，在以现行刑法和程序为基础执行《国际刑事法院规约》的国家，其目的不一定达到。在一些国家，其国家法院与国际刑事法院之间的关系不像前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭（前南问题国际法庭和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭）那样被视为“纵向”关系。这些国家构成了国际刑事法院的国内执行系统，就像准国家间刑事合作一样（介于“垂直”和“水平”系统之间）。在这方面，不能完全期望国际刑事法院制度的有效实施，因为它依赖于有关国家的司法自由裁量权。关于没收财产赔偿受害人的民事诉讼程序，各国的执行方式各不相同。值得注意的是，一些国家根本没有对明确纳入国际刑事法院体系的受害者赔偿作出回应。

In the research project of this year, implementing legislations in terms of the International Criminal Court(ICC) were examined from a comparative point of view. In particular, following points were focused : (1)role of domestic procedures and organs in executing an arrest warrant issued by the ICC ; (2)role of domestic courts in transferring accused to the ICC ; (3)domestic measures to seize the property of a person who was convicted by the ICC ; (4)applicability of domestic penal rules to the execution of sentences declared by the ICC.Through this examination, this investigator came to the following conclusion : In the state which has an ICC implementing legislation besides existing criminal laws, the implementing function of that legislation is generally so effective to succeed to link ICC Statute with domestic legal system. On the contrary, in the state which bases the implementation of ICC Statute on existing criminal laws and procedure, its purpose is not necessarily attained. In some states, relation between their national courts and the ICC is not considered as "vertical" one as in the case of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). Those states constitute domestic implementing system for the ICC just as quasi inter-state penal cooperation (an intermediate between "vertical" and "horizontal" systems). In this respect, effective implementation of the ICC system cannot be fully expected because it is dependent on the discretionary power of judiciary of the state concerned.As to the civil procedure concerning seizure of property for compensation to victims, the way of implementation varies from state to state. Remarkably, some states do not respond at all to the compensation for victims that is clearly incorporated in the ICC system.